Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:13:18 +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: There's no question this needs changing. An ISO example actually reads along the lines of: The question, though, is whether it needs changing _now_, or whether this'll break a number of critical utilities that rely on the broken behaviour. I can't imagine the latter case being true, but I thought it safe to put to question before folks with more experience. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
On Wed, 28 Jul 1999 20:13:18 +0200, Robert Nordier wrote: There's no question this needs changing. An ISO example actually reads along the lines of: The question, though, is whether it needs changing _now_, or whether this'll break a number of critical utilities that rely on the broken behaviour. I can't imagine the latter case being true, but I thought it safe to put to question before folks with more experience. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
Hi folks, Could someone have a look at the patch proposed on PR 12852? I understand the motivation, since it seems reasonable to me that ferror() should return EBADF after an attempt to read from stdout. At the moment, ferror() returns 0 after an attempt to read from stdout. Thanks, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Could someone have a look at the patch proposed on PR 12852? I
understand the motivation, since it seems reasonable to me that ferror()
should return EBADF after an attempt to read from stdout. At the moment,
ferror() returns 0 after an attempt to read from stdout.
There's no question this needs changing. An ISO example actually
reads along the lines of:
while (!feof(fp) !ferror(fp))
fscanf(fp, ...);
with no further provision for error-detection. Applied to stdout,
this never terminates.
The SVID wording is more definite than ISO in discussing this ("less
than nitems only if a read error or end-of-file is encountered"),
but mostly the present behavior just conflicts with sense and
practice.
--
Robert Nordier
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
Hi folks, Could someone have a look at the patch proposed on PR 12852? I understand the motivation, since it seems reasonable to me that ferror() should return EBADF after an attempt to read from stdout. At the moment, ferror() returns 0 after an attempt to read from stdout. Thanks, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: bin/12852: Non-standard behavior of fread(3)
Sheldon Hearn wrote: Could someone have a look at the patch proposed on PR 12852? I understand the motivation, since it seems reasonable to me that ferror() should return EBADF after an attempt to read from stdout. At the moment, ferror() returns 0 after an attempt to read from stdout. There's no question this needs changing. An ISO example actually reads along the lines of: while (!feof(fp) !ferror(fp)) fscanf(fp, ...); with no further provision for error-detection. Applied to stdout, this never terminates. The SVID wording is more definite than ISO in discussing this (less than nitems only if a read error or end-of-file is encountered), but mostly the present behavior just conflicts with sense and practice. -- Robert Nordier To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
